Ok, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I've come to a logical conclusion. Supernatural beings simply cannot exist. Consider the following: We, and everything else in the universe exists in our universe. Now that seems redundant and obvious right? Well, it should. Now, the definition of something supernatural is something outside of the natural world. Since a supernatural being is outside of nature, or the universe, it cannot exist! Think about it for a moment:

Everything that exists is inside of the natural world.

Supernatural things are not inside (are outside) of the natural world.

I agree that supernatural beings do not swoop down to Earth and cause storms and illegitimate children...

But they could theoretically have set the parameters of the universe before it was formed, so that which occurs was pre-coded.

Think about it. All the matter in the universe in a tiny dot. Change the variables in that dot, and you change how the big bang happens and what it turns in to.

Many things can now be explined by predictability, in other words, science. Why are things predictable? Because they follow set parameters. Who or what set the parameters, in the beggining, before the big bang?

Apotheosis wrote:Ok, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I've come to a logical conclusion. Supernatural beings simply cannot exist. Consider the following: We, and everything else in the universe exists in our universe. Now that seems redundant and obvious right? Well, it should. Now, the definition of something supernatural is something outside of the natural world. Since a supernatural being is outside of nature, or the universe, it cannot exist! Think about it for a moment:

Everything that exists is inside of the natural world.

Supernatural things are not inside (are outside) of the natural world.

Supernatural things do not exist.

It makes sense to me. What do you all think?

Okay, I have thought about it for a moment. Your reasoning has some flaws.
It is like this; "We, and all natural beings in the universe exists in our universe".
And like this:"Now, the definition of something supernatural is something that can not be observed or experienced be natural means".
So now the conclusion has to be that supernatural beings can exist, also in the universe, but we can not observe or experience them with natural means.

Our ability to understand something, or give a rational explanation for something, is not the foundation of its existence.

Apotheosis wrote:Ok, I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think I've come to a logical conclusion. Supernatural beings simply cannot exist. Consider the following: We, and everything else in the universe exists in our universe. Now that seems redundant and obvious right? Well, it should. Now, the definition of something supernatural is something outside of the natural world. Since a supernatural being is outside of nature, or the universe, it cannot exist! Think about it for a moment:

Everything that exists is inside of the natural world.

Supernatural things are not inside (are outside) of the natural world.

Supernatural things do not exist.

It makes sense to me. What do you all think?

It's circular--you're defining things in such a way that they HAVE to yield the results that you want. You can define anything you like however you like and then say "so it must be!" but that doesn't make it so. :)

Why does everything that exists have to be a part of the natural world? You only think that because through your natural means you can only see natural things. This does not mean that extra-natural things do not exist--it only means that you cannot currently sense them.

Why do supernatural things necessarily have to be "outside" of the natural world? And what do you mean by "outside"? Do you mean physically outside the boundaries of the known universe? Or do you mean something else, maybe that supernatural things are unnatural? But that is simply a tautology, and still brings us back to the original problem--if it is unnatural, then we can't prove or disprove it through natural means.

Ok, let me start over. Please disregard my orignal post. My new statements has now been turned into a question that I pose to all of you. Here it is: If supernatural beings do not exist in this world, then where do they exist?

My thoughts on the matter are that they do not and cannot exist. Here is my reason why: By definition, supernatural means relating to existence outside the natural world. We live in the natural world, thus I can draw the conclusion that supernatural beings cannot exist in our world. Furthermore, if there is another universe, then wouldn't it be considered "natural" as well? Why would it be anything else but natural? Finally, if these other universes are considered natural worlds, and supernatural beings do not exist within the or any natural world/worlds, then where do they exist?

This was my reasoning behind it all. I would very much like to hear your opinions.

P.S. -

Apotheosis, you also said that a good description of a supernatural being is illogical. So it would be hard to say anything about them in the first place.

What I meant by that was that you can't try to use logic to describe why supernatural beings can do what they can. And furthermore, just because something is illogical, that doesn't mean you can't say anything about it...For example, Billy can shoot rockets out of his teeth. That is a supernatural ability, yet I can conclude that if he were to fire his rockets at an object, the object would explode. Of course, my conclusion may be incorrect, but nevertheless, I used logic to try to figure something out.

We cannot be absolutely certain about anything except our definitions and interpretations of the universe. I found out from my neighbor that Socrates as well as Einstein once said something like this. I have figured most of it out on my own, and since these guys did also, I will trust them and my own beliefs.

Apotheosis wrote:My thoughts on the matter are that they do not and cannot exist. Here is my reason why: By definition, supernatural means relating to existence outside the natural world. We live in the natural world, thus I can draw the conclusion that supernatural beings cannot exist in our world. Furthermore, if there is another universe, then wouldn't it be considered "natural" as well? Why would it be anything else but natural? Finally, if these other universes are considered natural worlds, and supernatural beings do not exist within the or any natural world/worlds, then where do they exist?

Why assume that words such as "where", "within", and "outside" would even apply to the supernatural? It seems to me that time and space are very much parts of our physical universe. Let's not impose natural constrictions on supernatural beings. :)

Hmmm...I see your point. However, I am still not entirely convinced. I don't like the idea of a supernatural thing... It defies all laws of science, math, and physics... The next paragraph is just my thought process:

If supernatural things exist, then logically, they must have a time and place of existence. By definition, they are not of this world, but of another. However, who says that words such as where and when apply to supernatural things? If supernatural things aren't natural, then obviously things such as space and time do not apply. But for that matter, do any words or concepts apply to supernatural things? It would seem that we can't even describe supernatural beings because they do not make sense, thus in order to make sense of them, one would have to begin with an assumption and build upon that assumption. However, we cannot build upon assumptions, we need concrete facts, real evidence, that which has already been given like in a mathematical proof. Since we don't have any concrete evidence and there is no given information, we cannot make any conclusions or assumptions about supernatural beings. Thus, to even think about these kinds of things would be silly and a waste of brain power. One ought to be spending his or her time on something else.

My final conclusion is this: Whether or not supernatural things exist, we will never know for sure. However, it really does not matter for the idea cannot be proven or disproven. The idea of supernatural things is comparable to a singularity in physics. All laws break down and no valid, practical conclusions can be drawn. It is simply there, waiting to suck someone into it and make them waste their time blindly trying to reason their way out. All in all, the topic of supernatural beings is best left undiscussed.

Apotheosis wrote:Hmmm...I see your point. However, I am still not entirely convinced. I don't like the idea of a supernatural thing... It defies all laws of science, math, and physics... The next paragraph is just my thought process:

If supernatural things exist, then logically, they must have a time and place of existence. By definition, they are not of this world, but of another. However, who says that words such as where and when apply to supernatural things? If supernatural things aren't natural, then obviously things such as space and time do not apply. But for that matter, do any words or concepts apply to supernatural things? It would seem that we can't even describe supernatural beings because they do not make sense, thus in order to make sense of them, one would have to begin with an assumption and build upon that assumption. However, we cannot build upon assumptions, we need concrete facts, real evidence, that which has already been given like in a mathematical proof. Since we don't have any concrete evidence and there is no given information, we cannot make any conclusions or assumptions about supernatural beings. Thus, to even think about these kinds of things would be silly and a waste of brain power. One ought to be spending his or her time on something else.

My final conclusion is this: Whether or not supernatural things exist, we will never know for sure. However, it really does not matter for the idea cannot be proven or disproven. The idea of supernatural things is comparable to a singularity in physics. All laws break down and no valid, practical conclusions can be drawn. It is simply there, waiting to suck someone into it and make them waste their time blindly trying to reason their way out. All in all, the topic of supernatural beings is best left undiscussed.

lol. well, I haven't slept yet so we will see how coherent I am...
The problem here is that you are assuming empiricism as the highest (even the only) indicator of truth. Why do we need "concrete facts" and mathematical proofs for everything? Those things only apply to scientific truth, which by definition does not apply to supernatural beings. There are many things that we know through non-empirical means--a mother's love, for example. Any of the things that make us truly human--love, humour, personality, curiosity, even intelligence--none of these things fit into a formula. So why is it so hard to believe that there are other things in the universe which don't fit into a formula, or that you can't prove empirically?

One of the things about supernatural beings is that (as most people believe), they have the ability to interact with natural beings, which is where we get our knowledge of them. So it is possible to know... it's just maybe not possible to measure. ;)

Besides, even if that is not true, philosophy for the sake of itself is alright too, especially when it involves something that is ingrained into the human psyche. So the discussion isn't inherently futile. :)

The problem here is that you are assuming empiricism as the highest (even the only) indicator of truth. Why do we need "concrete facts" and mathematical proofs for everything? Those things only apply to scientific truth, which by definition does not apply to supernatural beings. There are many things that we know through non-empirical means--a mother's love, for example. Any of the things that make us truly human--love, humour, personality, curiosity, even intelligence--none of these things fit into a formula. So why is it so hard to believe that there are other things in the universe which don't fit into a formula, or that you can't prove empirically?

Actually, I've read some interesting articles in various magazines and books regarding this very topic of human emotions. As it turns out, scientists have been able to apply formulas and math to human emotions. There is all sorts of interesting research being done in this area, and what scientists are discovering is that the beta waves emitted by the brain are associated with different emotions. One particular experiment that was performed involved hooking up electrodes to a man's head and measuring the different frequencies and patterns of beta waves emitted by his brain. The scientists were then able to analyze the data that they had collected and apply it in extraordinary ways. For instance, they performed another experiment where a man had electrodes attached to his head which were hooked up to a computer and a moniter. The scientists instructed the man to think about something happy. The man did, and the beta waves emitted by his brain were transmitted to a computer which deciphered them and made a picture of a smiley face light up on the screen. (The screen had all sorts of other categories, such as anger, music, food, danger, etc, each denoted by a picture - a frowning face, a musical note, a piece of food, etc.) They instructed the man to think about another category, and the computer deciphered what the waves were associated with and made the appropriate picture appear on the screen. Now, this study was conducted a few years ago, so scientists' knowledge on the brain has increased by leaps and bounds since then. Currently, it is the belief of scientists that emotions are pure physics. They have all sorts of fascinating data that answers many questions about human emotions. I wish I knew more about the subject, but so far the data available to the general public is limited. However, the point is, abstract nouns and emotions may not be as mystical as they seem. There is some science and harcore evidence behind it all. Anyways, I just figured I'd share that!

The problem here is that you are assuming empiricism as the highest (even the only) indicator of truth. Why do we need "concrete facts" and mathematical proofs for everything? Those things only apply to scientific truth, which by definition does not apply to supernatural beings. There are many things that we know through non-empirical means--a mother's love, for example. Any of the things that make us truly human--love, humour, personality, curiosity, even intelligence--none of these things fit into a formula. So why is it so hard to believe that there are other things in the universe which don't fit into a formula, or that you can't prove empirically?

Actually, I've read some interesting articles in various magazines and books regarding this very topic of human emotions. As it turns out, scientists have been able to apply formulas and math to human emotions. There is all sorts of interesting research being done in this area, and what scientists are discovering is that the beta waves emitted by the brain are associated with different emotions. One particular experiment that was performed involved hooking up electrodes to a man's head and measuring the different frequencies and patterns of beta waves emitted by his brain. The scientists were then able to analyze the data that they had collected and apply it in extraordinary ways. For instance, they performed another experiment where a man had electrodes attached to his head which were hooked up to a computer and a moniter. The scientists instructed the man to think about something happy. The man did, and the beta waves emitted by his brain were transmitted to a computer which deciphered them and made a picture of a smiley face light up on the screen. (The screen had all sorts of other categories, such as anger, music, food, danger, etc, each denoted by a picture - a frowning face, a musical note, a piece of food, etc.) They instructed the man to think about another category, and the computer deciphered what the waves were associated with and made the appropriate picture appear on the screen. Now, this study was conducted a few years ago, so scientists' knowledge on the brain has increased by leaps and bounds since then. Currently, it is the belief of scientists that emotions are pure physics. They have all sorts of fascinating data that answers many questions about human emotions. I wish I knew more about the subject, but so far the data available to the general public is limited. However, the point is, abstract nouns and emotions may not be as mystical as they seem. There is some science and harcore evidence behind it all. Anyways, I just figured I'd share that!

ick. This is reductionism, which grates on me like nothing else.

Anyway, even if you *can* measure brain patterns tied to certain emotions, that still doesn't affect the way they play into our *lives* and *personalities*. You still can't make someone love somebody, or stop loving somebody. You can't solve depression (certain drugs which try to do this are only somewhat effective and don't get at the root of the problem), or the problem of pain or the problem of evil. They can reduce whatever they like to a formula or a brain pattern but that still is not the measure of a *person*. Formulae can't comfort someone who is grieving, dissuade a lover in love, or contribute to the wonder of a baby being born. Intelligence is not simply a number based on multiple choice questions but it includes wisdom, integrity, and how you use it. The formulae and explanations are simply constructs which the "rationalists" create... they are not what make us human.

Yes, and I understand that the fact that we are human and can feel emotion is incredible in itself. However, I think it is only a matter of time until scientists uncover and unlock the secrets and true nature behind the mind and the human condition. I'm looking forward to that day!

P.S. - Actually, the whole point of my previous post was just to prove that there were some concrete facts regarding topics that seemed to be completely devoid of any sort of scientific evidence.

I think about the begining of time and don't understand it. I believe my God exists, but I can't explain it. I can beaware of things, but can't explain them. Kind of like the Bermuda triangle. We haven't solved the case and don't understand it, but we know it happened.

You both missed my point. If I make something totally new up, then I understand it. Ok, I'm going to make up a new word. Here it is: Choobangshoo. It's a one word sentence for my shoe is smelly. How is it possible for me to not understand this concept when I am the one who thought of it?

I think we will not be able to understand God at all entirely. It is too much for what we call our minds. Its just too hard to get for us. I wouldn't worry about it though. Its not going to affect my life a lot weather I understand God or not. Its good to be curious though...